The present invention relates to a system, including methods and devices, utilizing wireless sensor devices and RFID (radio-frequency identification) transponders. Specifically, the present invention relates to a system incorporating novel devices and methods that enable point-of-use and on-demand commissioning of RFID transponder-equipped wireless sensors.
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponders enable improved identification and tracking of objects by encoding data electronically in a compact tag or label. And, advantageously, the compact tag or label does not need external, optically recognizable or human-readable markings. In fact, using the Gen2 EPC specification, a three-meter read-distance for RFID transponders is common—even on high-speed material handling lines.
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponders, typically thin transceivers that include an integrated circuit chip having radio frequency circuits, control logic, memory and an antenna structure mounted on a supporting substrate, enable vast amounts of information to be encoded and stored and have unique identification. Commissioning, the process of encoding specific information (for example, data representing an object identifier, the date-code, batch, customer name, origin, destination, quantity, and items) associated with an object (for example, a shipping container), associates a specific object with a unique RFID transponder. The commissioned transponder responds to coded RF signals and, therefore, readily can be interrogated by external devices to reveal the data associated with the transponder.
Current classes of RFID transponders rank into two primary categories: active RFID transponders and passive RFID transponders. Active RFID transponders include an integrated power source capable of self-generating signals, which may be used by other, remote reading devices to interpret the data associated with the transponder. Active transponders include batteries and, historically, are considered considerably more expensive than passive RFID transponders. Passive RFID transponders backscatter incident RF energy to specially designed remote devices such as interrogators.
Combining the benefits of the latest technology in RFID transponders with sensing devices, a broader class of devices called wireless sensors is emerging. Wireless sensors have a unique identity, sense one or more attributes within its environment, and report its identity and data corresponding to the sensed attributes. For example, a wireless sensor interprets environmental conditions such as temperature, moisture, sunlight, seismic activity, biological, chemical or nuclear materials, specific molecules, shock, vibration, location, or other environmental parameters. Wireless sensors are distributed nodes of computing networks that are interconnected by wired and wireless interfaces.
Wireless sensors, made using silicon circuits, polymer circuits, optical modulation indicia, an encoded quartz crystal diode, or Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) materials to affect radio frequency or other signaling methods, communicate wirelessly to other devices. For example, certain embodiments of wireless sensors communicate on a peer-to-peer basis to an interrogator or a mobile computer. Communication methods include narrow band, wide band, ultra wide band, or other means of radio or signal propagation methods.
Herein the terms tag, transponder, inlay and wireless sensor are used interchangeably unless otherwise noted.
Additional examples of RFID transponders, wireless tags, and wireless sensors are more fully discussed in this inventor's co-pending U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0080819, entitled “Systems and Methods for Deployment and Recycling of RFID Tags, Wireless Sensors, and the Containers Attached thereto,” published on 20 Apr. 2006, which is incorporated by reference for all purposes in this document.
One shortfall of prior-art, such as conventional print labels or barcode systems, includes a requirement for line of sight and an overdependence on the optical quality of the label. Many factors can render such a label unreadable including printing errors, excess ink, insufficient ink, physical destruction of the markings, obstruction of the markings due to foreign matter, and, in extreme cases, outright deception by placing an altered label over the top of such a print label.
RFID transponder labeling eliminates the need for an optically readable print label and overcomes all of the shortcomings related to print quality and the need for line of sight to scan the label. Moreover, RFID transponders enable secure data encryption, making outright deception considerably less likely to occur. However, current RFID label systems have their own limitations as well.
For example Zebra Technologies Corporation's Tsirline is the principal inventor of U.S. Pat. No. 6,848,616 (published on 1 Feb. 2005 to Tsirline et al.) with the title “System and method for selective communication with RFID transponders”. In that patent the inventors describe a system having an RFID transceiver that is adapted to communicate exclusively with a single RFID transponder. They disclose that the system includes a printhead and a magnetic flux generator having a planar coil formed as a trace upon a first layer of a printed circuit board. As with the aforementioned references, this approach adds unnecessary cost and complexity by combining RFID transponders with demand-printed labels, and uses a near field coupler design that does not concentrate the magnetic flux as selectively as the present invention disclosed herein. Additionally, the inventors make no mention of spatially separating the RFID tag to be encoded from other programmable tags and the release liner. The novelty of doing so allows 1) the end user of the encoder to remove the programmed tag from the release liner immediately following encoding and 2) for the tag to be reprogrammed with new data without having to advance or retract the release liner. Inventor Tsirline failed to recognize or consider this novelty as the printer mechanism he proposes does not allow removal or reprogramming after encoding without advancing the release liner.
In U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0045724, published 3 Mar. 2005, inventors Tsirline et al describe a printer system comprised of a printhead and RFID components to solve object identification problems. By contrast, the present invention clearly demonstrates that all aspects of printing on, with, or near RFID tags to facilitate identification is a wasteful and unnecessary encumbrance to efficient RFID tagging operations.
Inventor Feltz in U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2005/0280537, published on 22 Dec. 2005, discloses a system for reading and writing to an RFID transponder. The present invention cannot be anticipated by Feltz because an encoder is no more a printer than a tag is a label. Labels, particularly “SmartLabels” include a significant amount of printable surface area on the face stock material for printing symbols that are both human and machine readable. RFID tags and transponders may or may not contain such printable area, instead RFID tags and transponders provide wireless identification functions that are meant to supplement the optically readable functions of labels.
Tags are not Labels.
A key characteristic of the encoder of the present invention is that the encoder encodes tags of many different types, shapes, sizes, and thicknesses; which includes efficiently encoding thick tags, tags that are thicker than a sheet of paper because a foam layer is present. Such a tag design is advantageous for tagging metals or liquid containers.
Feltz illustrates in FIG. 2 the type of RFID transponder that is added to labels in order to make them compliant with retailer and DOD mandates. It is well known to those skilled in the art that such an RFID transponder will not operate when placed near metal or liquid. Those skilled in the art know that metal detunes the RFID transponder's antenna, and that liquids absorb radio energy just as they would in a microwave oven, resulting in heat, not RF communication. There are two dominant and notoriously well known mandates—Wal-Mart and the DOD. Both of those mandates clearly stated that only an RFID transponder had to be added to the previous labeling requirements. Those mandates also required that the transponders work after they were applied to the goods.
Retailer and DOD tagging mandates were clear, that the goods being tagged had to read, regardless of their construction, even foil-wrapped cartons, metalized mylar wrappers, and cases of liquids of all types had to read. This posed a problem for customers that bought RFID printers from Feltz's company. They found that the RFID tags that were encoded on his printer were not able to function when placed onto about 20% of the goods that are normally found in a retail supply chain. As such, Feltz does not really solve the mandate problem that he refers to in his paragraph [0005] where he makes the inaccurate statement that “One requirement is that certain record members e.g., compliance labels contain transponders”. Feltz has it backwards; the U.S. Department of Defense and Wal-Mart RFID tagging requirements did not require any new labels at all. In fact, both mandates (which were the dominant, if not the only ones at the time) were written to provide their suppliers with a full range of compliance options, including the option of embedding an RFID transponder directly into a corrugated carton (for example), which would completely eliminate the need for any kind of label whatsoever.
Feltz' printer mechanism did not actually need print heads, ribbons, or ink to comply with the mandates; yet his design is completely based around these unnecessary elements. Even worse, those elements prevent his invention from dispensing the thicker type of RFID tag that actually works on what those skilled in the art refer to as “RF-challenged” goods that contain metal or liquid. Specifically, the anticipating reference is inoperable with thicker tags because the fixed spacing between platen roll 63 and print head 69 of the Feltz printer invention is sized for thin paper-like labels, not thick dielectric-backed tags. Attempting to encode tags with a dielectric foam spacer would clog the printer with a mass of sticky detached RFID tags that would quickly accumulate in a useless clump at print head 69. The extra bulk reduces the mobility of his printer and consumes significantly more power, whereby ruling out any anticipation of a battery operated mobile encoder.
Tags: Thick or Thin.
The encoder of the present invention programs and verifies tags and transponders of almost any type including transponders with a dielectric spacer built into them. Note that this type of compliance tag is much thicker than the labels that Feltz discloses in his FIG. 2. A transponder with a dielectric spacer is at least ⅛″ thick and will easily pass through the feed mechanism of the present invention.
Smaller Tags.
Since the mandates did not require any more labels, and the items that are to be tagged include branded items and containers, the brand owners do not want their brand images and products with big stickers all over them. Therefore, smaller and less obvious is better and more appealing to consumers and brand owners. Feltz struggled with this, as is stated in his paragraphs [0005] and [0007] wherein he states that his invention provides for labels that have transponders spaced at a distance of 6 inches, which is an improvement over prior art. It is obvious that Feltz understands that smaller is better when it comes to dispensing large amounts of unnecessary label material.
Poor Resolution.
Had Feltz anticipated the elimination of the print head 69 he could have moved his encoding antenna 500 and 500′ closer to delaminator 64′. This would have allowed him to use a smaller label (or even a tag) with a pitch on the order of 0.6″ instead of 6″. This would have allowed him to put 10 times more tags onto a roll and create far less waste. It is obvious that Feltz did not anticipate any of these things because his antenna selectivity is inadequate for that. His use of microstrip antennae 500′ or 550′ do not have enough selectivity as shown in his spatial signal strength plots of FIGS. 28 and 29 and his statements in his paragraph [0068] that the tightest recommended tag spacing is 2 inches. Had Feltz anticipated a printerless encoder, he would have strived for spacing that is much tighter than 2 inch tag pitch.
United States Patent Application No. 2003/0227528 by Hohberger et al. published on 11 Dec. 2003 describes another attempt at improving demand-print labels by providing a device that combines two standard, die-cut rolls of media, one of which may be a roll of RFID transponders, and the second, print-label stock, in an attempt to provide on-demand smart labels. As with the aforementioned references, this approach adds unnecessary cost and complexity by combining RFID transponders with demand-printed labels.
Additionally, U.S. Pat. No. 7,066,667 issued to Chapman et al. on 27 Jun. 2006, U.S. Pat. No. 5,899,476 issued to Barrus et al. on 31 May 2005, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,246,326 issued to Wiklof et al. on 12 Jun. 2001, describe a device that commissions an RFID transponder with a printed label. This approach, however, introduces unnecessary waste, cost, and propensities for error. There is a growing category of applications that do not require anything other than a custom-encoded RFID transponder. This prior art calls for the inclusion of label printer hardware and related consumable materials that are not necessary for many RFID applications. Unneeded printer mechanisms create unnecessary complexities, size, and weight. In some instances this additional bulk hinders practical mobile applications.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,486,780, published on Nov. 26, 2002, inventors Garber et al disclose a hand-held item location device using RFID to seek and find library books. The disclosure emphasizes the importance of read range over great distances and large populations of RFID transponders, a quality that runs counter to the present invention that teaches how to localize radio frequency fields for programming only selected RFID transponders presented in succession for well-controlled encoding. Garber teaches techniques for searching and reading large collections of transponders in a library, not semi-automated transponder commissioning processes. The physics of Garber's invention is poorly suited to programming anything other than one transponder at a time that is carefully isolated by great distances from any other RFID transponder to avoid programming information into the wrong transponder.
Inventors Main and Kassens disclose in U.S. Pat. No. 5,763,867 published on Jun. 9, 1998, a hand-held data terminal with various scanner modules for the purpose of data acquisition. This patent, along with their subsequent and related disclosure in U.S. Pat. No. 5,962,837 published on Oct. 5, 1999, are examples of hand-held data collection devices for sweeping an RFID interrogation beam about an broad area around an operator (for example, a storage room or bulk-shelf location in a warehouse). This operating distance, however, lies beyond a close-range distance of a couple of inches and is limited to interrogation and data-acquisition, not encoding. Further, such devices are unable to limit their communication to RFID transponders that are in close-proximity of a few inches of the operator holding a hand-held encoder that includes a near field coupler.
Inventor Bennett in U.S. Pat. No. 6,830,181, published on 14 Dec. 2004, discloses a combination RFID and barcode scanner. Wherein an operator holds a handheld device in one location without moving the device and is able to read a barcode and read/write to an RFID transponder in the near vicinity. In the scenario that the RFID transponder is already on the package, Bennett's invention is an efficient device to encode RFID transponders with information gathered from the barcode scan. Though in the scenario that the RFID transponder is not already on the package, Bennett's novel ideas are no longer of much value. At which point, a majority of the operator's time and energy will go towards peeling an RFID transponder from its release liner and placing it on the package. The present invention increases the operator's efficiency by peeling and encoding the RFID transponder before it is placed on the package. In the present invention, the encoding occurs after the operator scans the barcode on the package and before the operator is able to reach and remove the transponder from the encoder. As such, the present invention allows an operator to be that much more efficient in commissioning RFID transponders by not waiting on encoding and peeling. By not having a means to peel an RFID transponder from its release liner, Bennett's invention is at a major disadvantage in tagging large volumes of item level consumer goods.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,223,030 by Fessler et al (published on 29 May 2007) and U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,249,819 (issued on 31 Jul. 2007) and 7,187,294 (issued on 6 Mar. 2007) both by Burdette et al, (inventors of Lexmark International, Inc.) disclose a printer/encoder system, and attempt to overcome the problems of detecting and locating an RFID inlay that is embedded somewhere in a printed label stock. The present invention overcomes that problem by eliminating the (larger) label, and only encoding RFID transponders, which generally have a physical outer dimension that very closely matches the embedded RFID transponder inlay dimensions.
Inventor Roberts in U.S Published Patent Application No. 2005/0283272, published on 22 Dec. 2005, teaches of a mobile encoding system for commissioning RFID transponders. Wherein, Roberts claims an apparatus for dispensing and activating electronic monitoring devices comprising: a) a receptacle capable of storing a supply of unactivated electronic monitoring devices; b) a separator cooperating with said receptacle for removing respective individual monitoring devices from the receptacle; c) an activator cooperating with said separator and configured to communicate an activation signal to an individual monitoring device removed from the receptacle by the separator; d) a verifier configured to communicate with the individual monitoring device subsequent to the activation signal to obtain a verification signal confirming that the individual monitoring device has been activated; and e) a dispenser cooperating with said verifier and operable for dispensing the individual monitoring device after receipt of a verification signal confirming that the individual monitoring device has been activated. Roberts patent application 2005/0283272 does not teach how an EM device is attached to an object that will be monitored. There is no mention of adhesives, screws, or any other means of attachment. This is in contrast to the present invention where adhesives are used to attach am RFID transponder to an object of the proper object class. In fact, it can be inferred that Roberts' EM devices have no exposed adhesive while they are being encoded, sorted, and stacked. Exposing an adhesive during these steps would obviously result in an unintended grouping of EM devices, stuck together, preventing passage of any additional EM devices. The problems addressed by the present invention require an additional and vital step that is not taught by Roberts' patent application: to associate and preferably attach an EM device to the correct type of object. Associating an encoded EM device of the correct type to an object of the correct type, is a vital step that is significantly prone to human error. Roberts does not teach any method for advancing and detaching programmed EM devices or RFID tags from a roll of conveyance web or release liner. Roberts only teaches that tags can be cut from a roll of EM devices that are separated by a perforation, but does provide any explanation regarding forward advancement of such a roll in coordination with the programming of EM devices: if the process is a continuous motion, or a start-stop action that is coordinated with the tag programming process. This is in contrast to Roberts' detailed explanation of the movements of other parts of the EM device dispensing apparatus. Detaching adhesive-backed tags is a critical process that leads to a transfer and subsequent attachment to an object that is only of the correct object class type.
Inventor Landt in U.S. Pat. No. 6,677,852, published on 13 Jan. 2004, teaches a: supply reel and take up reel means; radio frequency shielding; a means for associating data read from an RFID transponder with new data; a means for encoding authorization from an external authority for a selected numbering system; a plurality of authorization transponders adapted to provide the RFID transponder encoder device sets of preauthorized blocks of unique numbers for specific object classes; and acquiring object class information to encode multiple instances of unique number from that object class instance information in the transponder. Landt fails to describe how the uniqueness of numbers is assured. In fact, the issue of uniqueness is not adequately addressed in his U.S. Pat. No. 6,677,852. His only mention of uniqueness is suggested only as a possibility, whereas it is actually imperative to the proper functioning of a global tracking system such as that which is enabled by the EPCglobal numbering system. Landt fails to describe any authorizations that are related to numerical uniqueness. Instead, Landt's authorization keys must match a security field that is already present within a tag. Therefore Landt's authorization tags are like a password that unlocks a tag to enable it to receive new data. This is in contrast to an authorization to a tag encoder to authorize it to issue unique numbers to tags, regardless of any password requirements that may or may not exist. Despite Landt's efforts to broadly describe the instructions, he falls short of showing that he in any way anticipates the need for or challenges of writing unique serial numbers to uniquely identify RFID tags. His only mention of tag ID, number field 208, only relates to the essential presence of the field and the possible need to search through a population of tags by using the tag ID field. Furthermore, Landt demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the vital importance of having a unique tag ID, which is central to the premise of tracking objects within a global supply chain, when he states “The tag ID number field 204 provides a serial number or other identifying number for the data tag 102, which may be a unique number.”, which indicates that Landt did not understand that uniquely numbered tags are an essential part of using numbering systems such as the GS1 EPCglobal system. To further illustrate this point, Landt makes no mention of any numbering system that would be well known to those skilled in the art to assure numerical uniqueness in a tag ID field 204 or any other field disclosed in his invention. In Landt's discussion of writing to RFID tags, he never provides any information that would suggest that his invention is capable of assuring that unique tag ID's are written to tags, nor even describes writing tag ID's in any manner. Therefore it is apparent that U.S. Pat. No. 6,677,852 falls short of disclosing a data carrier of any kind that carries with it unique authorizations that are to be used by an RFID tag encoder for assuring that any tag ID's written to an RFID tag originate from a central number-issuing authority (such as from Uniform Code Council, GS1, Auto-ID Center, EPCglobal, ISO, etc.).
In U.S. Pat. No. 7.114.655, published on 3 Oct. 2006, inventor Chapman teaches the use of an RFID printer system, a printer programming language that contains RFID encoding instructions, and a conveyor system to move objects through the printing and encoding process. The prior art teaches how to encode data into an RFID label. The present invention teaches how to encode data into an RFID tag. As previously argued, an RFID tag is not an RFID label. An RFID label contains additional face stock material as a printing surface. That surface is printed with human readable and or optically machine-readable indicia. The printed information is not required for reading data using a radio frequency signal.
Inventor Waters in U.S. Pat. No. 7,077,489, published on 18 Jul. 2006, teaches an apparatus for printing and memory tag application onto a base medium. Waters fails to make the case for achieving the required functionality on a typical RFID tag. Water's invention is restricted to the use of specially prepared RFID tags that have adhesive on both sides of the tag. This unconventional tag configuration must overcome the adhesive forces that attach the tag to the webbing by having stronger adhesive forces that provide the force that is necessary to overcome the first adhesive bond. Waters fails to explain this acute short coming and relies upon this critical factor for successful transfer of the tag on each “thump”. In the absence of a proper control of this critical factor, the tags will not release, or will partially release, causing the applicator to clog or jam. The present invention overcomes these sever short comings by using a conventional RFID tag with adhesive on only one side, eliminating any chance of a misbalance between adhesive forces between a first and a second side of the RFID tag. This is a significant and novel differentiation from the Waters patent.
Inventor Sureaud in U.S. Pat. No. 7,320,432, published on 25 Jan. 2005, discloses a system for reading and encoding the output of an identification printer. The system provides a portable device that can be adapted to the output of standard bar code printers, capable of reading the bar code of labels produced by the printer and encoding the chip of the same label with the information read without any modification and interaction being required with the system installed to which the printer is attached. The system disclosed by Sureaud applies to the niche application of luggage RFID labels. When compared to the application of item level consumer good tagging, the prior art fails to address 1) the difficulty of efficiently applying RFID transponders to an object, and 2) the difficulty of producing a unique data identifier based off the items stock-keeping unit (SKU). The invention disclosed by Sureaud simply converts a barcode's numerical string to a binary string. Whereas, the present invention is reading in a SKU, converting that SKU to a unique identifier, and encoding an RFID transponder with that unique identifier. It's important to note that a SKU is not a unique identifier. For example, two packages of identical socks will have the same SKU, but the data encoded into their RFID transponders will be unique to each package. The barcode scanner presented in the present invention is in one way novel in how the data read from the barcode scanner is used in producing the data encoded into an RFID transponder.
Inventors Sano et al in U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2005/0218219, published on 6 Oct. 2005, discloses a label and RFID tag issuing apparatus. Wherein, the label and RFID tag issuing apparatus, comprises: a sensor for detecting presence of an RFID tag attached to a container; a printer for recording information that corresponds to a bar-code affixed to the container; a bar-code reader for reading the bar-code recorded on the container; an RFID tag reader/writer for writing information corresponding to the bar-code to the RFID tag; and a controller for controlling all of said components. Sano is addressing a niche application of RFID technology (factory automation); whereas the present invention is concerned with item level consumer good tagging. Inventor Sano's invention fails to address the needs unique to item level tagging, wherein: no mention or concern is expressed regarding operator efficiency in encoding and apply RFID tags, and no means is provided to ensure unique serialization of an RFID tag while operating off network. Lastly, as mentioned previously, the barcode scanner presented in the present invention is in one way novel in how the data read from the barcode scanner is used in producing the data encoded into an RFID transponder.
So, despite recent advances in RFID technology, the state-of-the-art does not fully address the needs of efficient, economical, high-volume, cost-effective, reliable deployment and commissioning of RFID transponders, inlays, tags and wireless sensors. Large-scale adoption and deployment of RFID transponders depends on systems utilizing reliable, low-cost RFID inlays and efficient commissioning means.